Clinical Performance of the BD Respiratory Viral Panel for BD MAX™ System in Detecting SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A and B, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a nasopharyngeal (NP) or anterior nasal (NS) swab from prospectively collected or retrospective specimens, we assessed the clinical performance of the BD Respiratory Viral Panel (BD RVP) for BD MAX System against FDA-cleared or authorized comparators. Across prospective and retrospective specimens, positive percent agreement (PPA) was ≥ 98.4% for SARS-CoV-2, ≥ 96.7% for influenza (flu) A, ≥ 91.7% for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and 100% for flu B (retrospective only) while negative percent agreement (NPA) was ≥ 97.7% across all targets, leading to the assay FDA clearance. A head-to-head comparison of NS versus NP results with BD RVP was also performed; PPA was ≥ 90% and NPA ≥ 98.2% for SARS-CoV-2, flu A and RSV. These findings confirm that the BD MAX RVP assay performs well for detection and differentiation of the three viruses in NP and NS specimens, with strong interrater agreements for NS versus NP comparisons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".